How should we Philosophise?

OK – I promised an essay on the "self" – an essay that undertakes the task of delving into the many layers of the "self", a process which will continue further into several more pieces of philosophical writing.

However, there is something we must address before we dive into this difficult well of information. This something is "How we should Philosophise?" and I will be dealing with this question in this essay.

How should we Philosophise?

This question can be read in two ways at least, and I wish to answer it from these two angles.

1. How should we [rational beings] philosophise?

2. How should we [Mazdalogicians] philosophise?

As it is expected, the answer to question 2 cannot be much different from question 1. After all, Mazdalogy is only a specific organised approach to the questions of philosophy.

But I will stop the lecture and get to the main body of the essay.

1. How should we [rational beings] philosophise?

Philosophising is, we have said before, a natural tendency for rational beings such as ourselves. It is part of the questioning nature that resides inside us, driving us forward as we thirst for knowledge and understanding.

We have also stated what, in our opinion, philosophy is. The questions "what", "why" and "how" lie at the centre of the philosophical process of inquiry.

We have also explored the method of inquiry, the questions we should ask and the limits of questions and answers. These have been the topics discussed in the previous two essays, and I would recommend them to anyone interested in learning the Mazdalogical understanding of Philosophy and Philosophical Inquiry.

Now that we know what is asking and what we should ask, the next logical step is to determine how we are to set out in finding answers to these major questions. This probing into our world, our "self", our minds, in an effort to discover hidden hints to the vast universe around us is the philosophising spirit.

However, specifically speaking, how are we to probe into the "self"? So, before we actually probe the "self", we should explore how to probe? How do we seek the answers within ourselves? Where can we find these answers?

The world around us is a complex concocted mix of colours, smells, tastes, sounds and senses laid in a background we call Space, moving against an element of Time. We seem to perceive this in one dimension, and we seem to perceive a whole new Space-Time World in another dimension. By this I mean the concept we call "mind" in the English language. In this mind, a whole separate world exists, seemingly disconnected but subtly tied to this world in the form of a single entity – a unity that reflects two distinct worlds simultaneously. This single entity is the entity that perceives these worlds – these colours, tastes, smells, objects and forms. This single entity, this individual, is what we call a "person" – this entity is no other than the "self".

So, we find ourselves amongst the waves of existence and we try to make sense of it. What are the ways we can come up with philosophical responses?

I will provide a fiction to better understand the issues we are exploring.

A philosopher and a scientist were arguing. The philosopher insisted upon rationality, and the scientist waved the flag of empirical knowledge.

An alchemist came forth.

"You, Alchemist, judge between us. Who is right?" they asked.

"You are both wrong," he replied.

The two men were shocked and hurt to hear this. They protested.

"How can both of us be wrong?"

"You are both right," said the alchemist.

The two men decided he was mad.

But the alchemist said, "Can a philosopher rationalise if there is nothing to rationalise about? Can a scientist make sense of experience if he lacks the rationality required?"

So the two men put aside their differences and became comrades.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above fiction shows us two different approaches to understanding the world: 1.Rationalism or pure reason and 2.Empiricism or pure experience.

Rationalism believes that reason is the criteria for truth and falsity whereas Empiricism looks to experience as criterion.

The Alchemist suggests a synthesis of the two, believing them to be complimentary. Truth can be found when rationality weighs the experiences. Without experience, rationality will be lame and without rationality, experience will be a meaningless muddle of senses and passions.

We will be dealing with the Mazdalogical method of finding answers and truths in future essays, where a perfect synthesis of rationalism and empiricism is presented to the student.